I thought Religious don't force their views on other people?

[sherminator]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8586344.stm


I find this absolutely shocking!

No question just a bit of early morning venting!

[naomi24]

You really are shallow, aren't you. You don't have a clue.

Bedtime. Night everyone.

[TCL-MUMPING]

No answer then?

[mibn2cweus]

The lady (and in this case I use that term loosely) behind the counter is refusing to provide a service that any customer would reasonably expect to be provided and which is indeed a service customarily provide by reasonable people in her position. But this particular 'lady' who is apparently suddenly overcome with guilt at the prospect of doing her job sees fit to impose her beliefs and subject this customer to the whims of her invisible friend discretely concealed within the pages of her black book of grim fairy tales. Let's all just face the facts here. There's no argument to be won here when the standard by which the truth of this situation must be ascertained is to be oblivious to the absurdity of it all.

At this point we can only hope that those placed in the position of resolving this ridiculous matter are not now thumbing through the pages of their black book of grim fairy tales in search of guidance, a possibility I am not prepared to wager against.

[naomi24]

birdie, I believe the woman in question is Muslim.

I find it quite incredible that any human being can smugly say, albeit wrongly, that //Parliament and the society representing that pharmacist have decreed that her beliefs take precedence over the need of the customer//, as though that somehow validates his argument and vindicates this woman. I'm convinced he hasn't the foggiest idea what it means to possess decent human values, but if that's the impact that religion has on the human intellect, then all I can say is 'thank God(?) I'm Godless!'

I have given the argument up, Birdie. As Mibs says, there is no argument. I only hope for TCL Mumping's sake that Buddhism doesn't turn out to be the one true religion, because if it does he has a long and arduous road ahead of him. ;o)

[beso]

Arguing with the religious is futile because the premis of their philosophy is that ther values are beyond question. They seek guidance from a God they belive an be contacted by internalising their search for truth.

Of course they are actually consulting with nothing more than their entrenched beliefs which is why religious beliefs are unavoidably stangnant and prone to fascist interpretation. The doctrine proliferates by being inflicted upon children and throughout history to this day has frequently asserted itself through violence against all doubters.

[keyplus90]

What's going on in this room.

[jno]

ludwig, if you're still around: 'People who want birth-control products' aren't really a class of people, at least not in the eyes of the law. The groupings the state wishes to see protected are generally along the lines of race, religion and sexual orientation. While it might be reasonable to have a notice saying 'You might not get birth-control products here', that would be a courtesy rather than a necessity, since it's what the law allows anyway.

Some posters here are insisting it's 'not about the legality' of the issue. But it is: the law allows the assistant to act as she did, and they say this should be banned. In other words, they want the law changed. Specifically, they want it changed to enforce their own views rather than the assistant's. They're welcome to argue this line, but the law has actually considered the matter and come down on the other side.

[society]

It's a tough crowd in here!

[ummmm]

They are ain't they...lol. I'm sometimes astounded by their knowledge..

[society]

There are some very brilliant minds on AB, even in Chatterbank lol

[ummmm]

I thought I was fairly intelligent until I joined this site. Now I generally feel like a thicko...

[naomi24]

jno, I don't know if there is actually a 'law' that states that this woman acted within her rights, as you claim, but I have my doubts because whilst such a law would protect the rights of the pharmacist to act upon her religious convictions, it would at the same time deny the rights of the patient to obtain the medication prescribed by her doctor. However, the governing body has certainly laid down regulations that allow this woman to refuse to serve a customer, but on condition that she conforms to certain provisos. If she did indeed conform to those provisos, and carried out her duties as her employer, a major high street pharmacy, was aware she was going to, then I have to ask why the patient had cause for complaint, and why the company has launched an investigation that is still on-going? Something is very clearly wrong here. Anyway, that aside, what you and TCL Mumping are determined to fail to acknowledge is that this isn't about the legality of the issue. If the law were genuinely the yardstick by which you set your principles, which is what you're clearly saying here, then you two would no doubt have supported the law that sentenced children to death for stealing a loaf of bread even though that was morally wrong too. I think you are very well aware that this is a question of morals, and that this is precisely what the people here are talking about, but you've consistently and purposefully evaded the fundamental issue by focussing your argument upon a perceived 'law'. I've asked a similar question to the one below several times, but since I've received no response, I'll ask it again.

Tell me why, morally, anyone should be denied prescription medicine, or inconvenienced in any way at all for that matter, because of someone else's religious convictions?

[LazyGun]

Once again, jno is arguing a straw man. Dont let him get away with it. The Original post was " Ithought the religious dont force their views on other people?". Brought about by the story that the pharmacy assistant had refused to fill part of a prescription because it violated the pharmacy assistants religious convictions.

This absolutely is ( and don't let jno or TCL tell you otherwise, or deflect you from this central point) puttiing the religious sensiblilities of a shop assistant ahead of a legally prescribed medication of a patient, causing stress, frustration, embarrassment and no small amount of irritation to the patient in the process.

Shame on the GphC for allowing such an outmoded and ridiculous clause to continue.

[TCL-MUMPING]

“I find it quite incredible that any human being can smugly say, albeit wrongly, that //Parliament and the society representing that pharmacist have decreed that her beliefs take precedence over the need of the customer// “

I am wrong am I? Are you sure about that? With regard to the legality, this is what the Code states, “The Code of Ethics sets out the principles that you must follow as a pharmacist or pharmacy technician. The Code is the Society’s core guidance on the conduct, practice and professional performance expected of you. It is designed to meet our obligations under The Pharmacists and Pharmacy Technicians Order 2007 and other relevant legislation.”


“The principles of the Code of Ethics are mandatory. As a registered pharmacist or pharmacy technician your professional and personal conduct will be judged against the Code. You must abide by its principles irrespective of the job you do.”

On previous occasions, pharmacists have refused to issue a prescription before due to religious beliefs, if it's illegal, how many successful prosecutions have there been as a result?

[naomi24]

TCL Mumping, since you are clearly incapable of understanding the fundamental moral principle involved here, which is what I, and others, have been attempting to convey, I've already said that my conversation with you is ended.

I would, however, welcome an answer to my question.

[TCL-MUMPING]

" I've already said that my conversation with you is ended." "I would, however, welcome an answer to my question." I talk but you won't listen, hardly a conversation, eh?

I answered the question by the way if you care to read previous answers.

Perhaps now you will address the legal issues.

[naomi24]

I don't care to read your previous answers. Once was enough - and I saw no answer there.

My bedtime. Night all.

[TCL-MUMPING]

Ach well, it's there but if you can't see it, that's no ma problem. Be interesting to see if the customer tries to take a legal action against the pharmacist...somehow I think she won't.